untitled

4 Study skills

allowed time for thorough reading of the question. So don’t panic or read through too

hurriedly. Next, see what the question asks you to do. (This is usually spelt out in the first

or the last sentence of the question.) Then identify the legal issues which the question raises.

Finally, apply the relevant cases to the issues and reach a conclusion.

Chapter 2 Practice Question 2, reproduced here, can be used as an example.

Acme Supastore advertised its ‘price promise’ heavily in the Nottown Evening News. This promise

stated that Acme was the cheapest retailer in the city of Nottown and that it would guarantee that

this was true. The advertisement stated, ‘We are so confident that we are the cheapest in the area

that we guarantee that you cannot buy a television anywhere in Nottown cheaper than from us. We

also guarantee that if you buy any television from us and give us notice in writing that you could

have bought it cheaper at any other retailer within five miles of our Supastore on the same day we

will refund twice the difference in price. Offer to remain open for the month of December. Any claim

to be received in writing within 5 days of purchase.’ Belinda saw the advertisement and was per-

suaded by it to buy a television from Acme Supastore for £299. The contract was made on Monday

3 December. On Saturday 8 December Belinda found that a neighbouring shop was selling an

identical model of television for £289 and had been selling at this price for the past six months.

Belinda immediately telephoned Acme Supastore to say that she was claiming her money back.

She also posted a letter claiming her money back. The letter arrived on Monday 10 December.

Acme Supastore are refusing to refund any of the purchase price. Advise Belinda as to whether or

not any contract has been made.

The final sentence of the question tells you what you are required to do – advise Belinda

as to whether or not a contract has been made. You should remember from your study of

contract law that the requirements of a contract are an offer, an acceptance, an intention to

create legal relations and consideration. So if these are all present a contract will exist.

Notice that all the question asks you is whether or not a contract exists. It did not ask what

remedies might be available if such a contract did exist and was breached. It might have

done this, but it did not. So make sure you answer the question asked.

The first legal issue is whether the advertisement is an offer. So first define an offer as a

proposal of a set of terms, made with the intention that both parties will be contractually

bound if the proposed terms are accepted. Then you apply your legal knowledge in depth.

The advertisement might be an invitation to treat. Partridge vCrittenden (1968)(see p. 38)

established that most advertisements are not offers. If advertisements were classed as offers,

problems with multiple acceptances and limited stock of goods would soon arise. The

advertisement here, like the one in Partridge vCrittenden, uses the word ‘offer’. However,

this advertisement can be distinguished because it shows a much more definite willingness

to be bound. Nor would possible multiple acceptances cause a problem here. There would

be no need for Acme to hold unlimited stock. If many people accepted, Acme would need

only to make multiple price refunds, which would probably be small. So the multiple

acceptance issue would not indicate a lack of intention to make an offer.

You then compare the advertisement in the question to the one in Carlill’s case (1893)

(see p. 39), noting similarities and differences. (Analysis, evaluation and synthesis will be

shown in a really good answer.) There is no need to reproduce all the facts of Carlill’s case.

You might point out that the advertisement in the question said that it was guaranteeing

that what it said was true, and that this is similar to the Smoke Ball Company’s advertise-

ment, which said that money had been deposited in the bank to show that they meant what

they said. You would explain that whether or not there is an intention to create legal rela-

tions is an objective test and that in this commercial context it would be presumed that there

was an intention unless there was evidence to suggest otherwise. Again, a comparison

could be made with Carlill’s case, where, as in the question, the advertisement was made

A02_MACI4097_03_SE_FM2.QXD 1/31/11 2:55 PM Page 4